linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] dt-bindings: cpufreq: add virtual cpufreq device

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2024 11:26:26 +0000
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To: Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>, David Dai <davidai@...gle.com>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
	Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...gle.com>,
	Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
	Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
	Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
	Pavan Kondeti <quic_pkondeti@...cinc.com>,
	Gupta Pankaj <pankaj.gupta@....com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	kernel-team@...roid.com, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] dt-bindings: cpufreq: add virtual cpufreq device

On Fri, Feb 02, 2024 at 09:53:52AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 10:23:03AM -0800, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> >
> > We also need the OPP tables to indicate which CPUs are part of the
> > same cluster, etc. Don't want to invent a new "protocol" and just use
> > existing DT bindings.
> 
> Topology binding is for that.
> 
> What about when x86 and other ACPI systems need to do this too? You 
> define a discoverable interface, then it works regardless of firmware. 
> KVM, Virtio, VFIO, etc. are all their own protocols.
>

+1 for the above. I have mentioned the same couple of times but I am told
it can be taken up later which I fail to understand. Once we define DT
bindings, it must be supported for long time which doesn't provide any
motivation to such a discoverable interface which works on any virtual
platforms irrespective of the firmware.

--
Regards,
Sudeep